Towards a More Fully Representative History of the British Mormon Experience [3], by Chris Ralph

PART THREE: A Disrespectful Racket.

For most early British converts the painful discovery that they had not been fully informed concerning the true nature of what Fanny Stenhouse called “practical Mormonism”, did not take place until they arrived in America, by which time there was little realistic opportunity of turning back. However, some British members did catch a glimpse of things as they actually were through their close association with the American leaders of the church in Great Britain, and how they privately conducted themselves.

Samuel Hawthornthwaite was an elder in the Hulme Branch in Manchester in 1850, at a time when the growth of the 19th century British LDS church was nearing its zenith. At that point Cyrus Wheelock, (who had been a close friend and confidant of Joseph Smith at the time of Smith’s assassination in 1844), was called to preside over the Manchester Conference, (i.e. District), and Hawthornthwaite kindly offered accommodation in his home to Elder Wheelock and his English wife, whom he had recently married[1]. An ugly rumour was already in circulation however, (and it was subsequently shown to be true), that Wheelock had another wife or perhaps wives back in America, and so Hawthornthwaite, not wishing to be an accessory to bigamy, privately confronted him about the matter, whereupon Wheelock issued strenuous denials and assurances.

Nevertheless, within a short time complaints arose against Elder Wheelock because of his“making too free with the younger sisters in the country branches”, concerning which conduct, Hawthornthwaite noted, even non-Mormons had begun to comment. Wheelock’s response was to deny all accusations, and to take disciplinary action against those members who had dared to accuse him of such predations. Continues Hawthornthwaite: “When he had been at my house a few months, he persuaded his wife to go and live with her friends at Birmingham, and in her stead, he brought a Miss Dallan, from Newport, where he had been preaching.” This part of the narrative is borne out by the 1851 census of 45 Clare Street, Hulme, in which it was recorded that Mary Ann Dallan, aged 19, a native of Ilfracombe, Devon, was staying with Cyrus H. Whellock (sic), a Gentleman, in the Hawthornthwaite household.

1851 Census enumeration of Samuel & Ann Hawthornthwaite’s household at Hulme.

The Hawthornthwaites were somewhat disconcerted that there appeared to be an inappropriate degree of intimacy between Elder Wheelock and young Sister Dallan, but nevertheless accommodated her as a guest, by altering the household sleeping arrangements. However, Miss Dallan soon affected to be unwell, and took to her bed, asking Wheelock to “lay hands” upon her, (i.e. to give her a priesthood blessing), to ease her sickness. After that Wheelock assured Hawthornthwaite he would sit up and look after the young woman each night. This aroused Sam Hawthornthwaite’s suspicions, until he, his wife and other witnesses one morning observed the couple sleeping together in bed. Mrs Wheelock was privately sent for, and when she arrived in a state of distress, Mrs Hawthornthwaite told her all that had taken place. Wheelock and Miss Dallan were out together at the circus that particular evening until 11.30pm, so were unaware that Mrs Wheelock had arrived in their absence. The couple returned in a state of some jollity, only to be confronted by the wronged wife.

In addition to the act of adultery, Elder Wheelock had also spent an estimated £90 on the wooing of Miss Dallan over the course of six weeks, and that money had come from donations made by the downtrodden members of the Manchester Conference. “He bought her three new dresses… boots, bonnets, ribbons, shawls, pomatums, paints, scents, in fact everything a capricious girl could wish, or an old fool lavish. He took her to the boxes of the Theatre Royal five nights out of six, where he fed her with wine, jellies, cakes, oranges, and the like, to such an extent, that when she emptied her pockets in the morning, there was enough of broken bits to feast my little boy during the day.  This he did, while the Saints were starving themselves on his account.” Wheelock was in effect using the widows’ mites to further his own amorous ambitions, and so out of a sense of acute injustice, Hawthornthwaite attempted to hold his Conference President to full account before the church on charges of adultery and extravagance.

However, Wheelock’s reputation for vindictiveness, acquired when he had been previously accused of wrongdoing, was enough to persuade some witnesses to withdraw their evidence, for fear that they would in the process lose their membership, and with it, as they believed, all eternal hope. In the hour of their testing, loyalty appeared more important to them than truth. Even Hawthornthwaite’s branch president, who had previously complained to him that for fourteen years the Americans had been the greatest curse the English members had had to endure, when it really counted bore a hypocritical testimony to a church court, (held over the course of three consecutive evenings), that without servants of the Most High like Wheelock the British would have no salvation available to them. Unsurprisingly, Wheelock denied all the charges, whereupon the presiding officer, Elder Wallace, another American, dismissed the case as unproven, commenting: “I know it is hard to make you Englishmen believe that a servant of the Lord can sleep with a young lady for three weeks, and not commit adultery with her, but it is so.” Undoubtedly, Wallace, like Wheelock, already had knowledge of the secret system of plural marriage which was being practised in America, but it was not until the following year that this was officially revealed as a doctrine and practice of the church, and until then the British members were “protected” from hearing it, unless, of course, they emigrated and witnessed it first-hand.

 

Cyrus Wheelock, one-time friend of Joseph Smith and Manchester Conference President in 1851.

Having been acquitted, Wheelock then set about cutting off from the church all who had opposed him in the hearing, and according to Hawthornthwaite’s record, used his high priestly powers to curse him and his children publicly that they might be cast “as far into Hell, as a pigeon can fly in a day!” Such a volatile outcome was perhaps always likely when an experienced American frontiersman, believing himself to be uniquely authorised of God, encountered a stubborn Englishman, (and a Yorkshireman at that), who had discerned through reasoned observation that he was not. It was not long though before others reached similar conclusions to Hawthornthwaite: when a member by the name of Harrison was excommunicated for fathering an illegitimate child, he protested to the church court:“If you cut me off, you must also cut off Elder Wheelock, for while I was in one bed with one sister, he was in another bed with the other.”

The Mormon elite were permitted some extra degree of latitude apparently. They were their own judges in this land, as no resident British member was at that time authorised to sit in judgment upon them, so their word was effectively the law of the church, and the church, of course, was God’s prescribed means of salvation. Having known, or been personally acquainted with Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and others, these men occupied a rarefied position in the gathering of the British people to Zion. Cyrus Wheelock, for example, was the man who had smuggled a pistol into Carthage Jail, Illinois, for Joseph Smith shortly before his death. (Smith and his brother were at the time being held, pending trial, to answer charges of treason, having destroyed the printing press of The Nauvoo Expositor newspaper, which had published details of Smith’s marital or extra-marital excesses.) Wheelock’s conduct was perhaps only in imitation therefore of that of his file leaders, whom he idolised.

Not long after Sam Hawthornthwaite found himself embroiled in troubles over the conduct of Cyrus Wheelock, Fanny Stenhouse received news from her Scottish husband, who was at the time serving a mission in Switzerland, that talk was rife among his American brethren that Brigham Young might be about to announce that the church would adopt the practice of polygamy. There had been rumours which had previously come to her ears, but they had been quickly dismissed as anti-Mormon propaganda. Upon hearing this shocking news therefore, her world fell apart: “I began to realize that the men to whom I had listened with such profound respect, and had regarded as the representatives of God, had been guilty of the most deliberate and unblushing falsehood; and I began to ask myself whether, if they could do this in order to carry out their purpose in one particular, they might not be guilty of deception upon other points? Who could I trust now? For ten years the Mormon Prophets and Apostles had been living in Polygamy at home, while abroad they vehemently denied it, and spoke of it as a deadly sin. This was a painful awakening to me; we had all of us been betrayed.”[2]

Her sentiments so eloquently recorded for posterity in those words echoed the thoughts of many of the British members at the time, and when the official announcement duly came, many began to turn away from Mormonism in the British Isles. The decline in membership from 1852 onwards, accompanied by public hostility shown to Mormons, was a feature for the rest of the century.

The real disgrace though, was that so many devout British converts had already been encouraged to commit so much on trust to a cause about which they actually knew so very little. As a matter of policy, they had been deliberately deprived of full and accurate reports by their American leaders, and this had been done in order to elicit from them the kind of life-changing commitment, from which most inevitably later found themselves unable to retreat.

If the challenges of being a British Mormon had been significant before the shock of the polygamy announcement in 1852, they suddenly became much fiercer. Mormonism had previously been an object of ridicule in Britain, but afterwards became a target for hatred and despising. The following excerpt from ‘The Bristol Mercury’ in 1857 was a fairly typical illustration of how public disliking for polygamous Mormonism was apt to spill over:

“THE MORMONS AGAIN — Thomas Ingram was charged with being disorderly, and with having thrown a stone at the Mormon Chapel in Milk Street. Sunday night P.S. 91 saw a number of people, of whom the prisoner was one, throwing stones and dirt at the door of the Mormon chapel, and at the people assembled there… Mr Inspector Bell said the row on Sunday night was a very violent one; and that the mob hunted one of the Mormon elders all through the Horsefair.  Mr Barrow remarked that however much the magistrates might differ from the Mormonites in their way of pursuing their religious calling —

Mr Herapath (interrupting) — Don’t call it religious. It is not that, and certainly not moral. It is a disgrace to England that we are obliged to permit these people.

Mr Barrow said that might be so, but the peace must not be broken.

Mr Herapath — Certainly not.

Mr Barrow — The magistrates would therefore call on the prisoner to find sureties, himself in £20, and two others in £10 each, to keep the peace for the future.”[3]

A mid-19th century Petty Sessions Court

The public perception from the first had been that ignorance was the reason British people were deceived by Mormonism. “It is surprising”, reported the Worcester correspondent of the ‘Morning Post’ on 4th November 1846, “even to those who know the exceeding lack of education in the rural districts of this county, and its neighbour Herefordshire, that so clumsy an imposture, and so ungainly a set of adepts, could have succeeded so well, as, unhappily, too many wretched dupes can testify.” [4] The question arises as to whether that “ungainly set of adepts” really believed in the message they were spreading? Undoubtedly the answer to that reasonable question is that they did. The great majority of missionaries by this time were British, and being recent converts themselves, trusted fully in the message they carried. They were the ones who bore the main burden of taking Mormonism to their fellow citizens under the direction of a few American leaders, and they earnestly believed that they were living during the end times of a fallen world.

Some of the earliest converts had met and listened to Apostle Wilford Woodruff during his highly successful mission to England in 1840-1, so it is not difficult to imagine the profound effect on those men and women when they read Woodruff’s words in ‘The Millennial Star’, their own LDS newspaper, in 1845; Woodruff proclaimed: “You live in the day and hour of the judgments of God Almighty… Thrones will be cast down, nations will be overturned, anarchy will reign, all legal barriers will be broken down, and the laws will be trampled in the dust. You are about to be visited with war, sword, famine, pestilence, plague, earthquakes, whirlwinds, tempests, and with the flame of devouring fire…. the slain of the Lord will be many.”[5] Little wonder then that those men called to serve missions had fire in their souls as they ventured forth into a sick and dying world with, as they believed, the single ultimate solution: Mormonism. Any personal rejection they encountered along the way merely strengthened their faith that the end was nigh. A Book of Mormon witness, Martin Harris, referring to that publication, had once stated, ”All who believed the new bible would see Christ within fifteen years, and all who did not would absolutely be destroyed and dam’d.”[6] Christ’s return, it seems, had at one time, early in the church’s history, been expected by 1846, and a similarly fatalistic outlook seems to have infected not only Woodruff, but his many British converts.

A good illustration of this is the case of Henry Glover. In the summer of 1840, Apostle Brigham Young selected Glover to leave his native Ledbury and open up the work in the city of Bristol, 40 miles away. Glover was a former preacher of the United Brethren, a localised splinter group of the Primitive Methodists, which group had converted en masse a few months earlier, under the instruction of Woodruff, believing Mormonism to be a fulfilment of their spiritual aspirations. Young described Glover in a letter to Joseph Smith as “a humble, good man, and will do much good”. However, as Young in later years recollected, Glover “went to Bristol, and cried, ‘Mormonism,’… and no person would listen to him. On the next morning he was back at Ledbury, and said, ‘I came out of Bristol, washed my feet against them and sealed them all up to damnation.’” [7]

Here then is a clear example of the apocalyptic mindset of those early British Mormons. Anticipating an imminent return of Christ, Glover, in his religious fervour, had apparently felt justified in condemning a whole city of 140,000 citizens, because a token sample of its populace had rejected in a single afternoon what he himself had recently accepted as the one true gospel! Glover was promptly returned to Bristol however, and persevered for a while longer the second time, for Woodruff’s journal records on 14th September 1840 that the Bristol Branch consisted then of Elder H. Glover, and three others.[8]

Bristol in the mid-19th Century

For a few years following the exodus of the church from Nauvoo to the Rocky Mountains in 1846/7, very few American brethren remained in Great Britain. Fanny Stenhouse records that in 1849 there were only two or three Americans in total preaching the gospel, so virtually the whole burden had fallen upon the British, and this also coincided with the greatest period of LDS success enjoyed in Britain during the 19th century. She noted that“Mormonism was bold then in Europe — it had no American history to meet… polygamy was unheard of as a doctrine of the Saints, and the blood-atonement, the doctrine that Adam is God, together with the polytheism and priestly theocracy of after years were things undreamed of.”[9]

So what was the message British Mormons were teaching in the halls and streets and market places at that point? Fanny Stenhouse explained that it was: “The saving love of Christ, the glory and fulness of the everlasting Gospel, the gifts and graces of the Spirit, together with repentance, baptism, and faith… and who can wonder that with such topics as these, and fortifying every statement with powerful and numerous texts of Scripture, they should captivate the minds of religiously inclined people?”

Even so, proclaiming this watered-down version of Mormonism was a challenging enough undertaking, especially for those who had no former experience of preaching. Of those who were called to do so, (and this was an era when male members were not automatically given the priesthood, and relatively few were ordained elders), most set about it with typical British stoicism and workmanlike determination. They did so because they believed that they were God’s vessels for bringing salvation to a dying world. Richard Rawle, a native of Devon who had been baptised in Bristol in 1842, was a fairly typical example of such men. A humble cobbler during the working day, he spent much of his spare time preaching the gospel to his fellow citizens of Bristol in ad hoc open air meetings. On two occasions he was chased by mobs through the streets after preaching, and feared he would be badly beaten or killed if caught, but still accounted himself blessed to be entrusted in this way with God’s word[10]. Mormonism may have been publicly despised, but in everyday situations individual Mormons seem to have been tolerated. William Jefferies, commenting on his interactions with non-LDS work colleagues in the 1850s stated that he had been “party to many a little ‘mormon’ debate with Sunday religionists who were my fellow-workmen, and although they pitied yet they respected me.”[11]

  

Two of Bristol’s home-grown missionaries, (Left) Richard Rawle, (Right) William Jefferies

The more able British male converts were sometimes called to serve missions away from home for weeks or months at a time, usually within a day or two’s walking distance from their homes. They covered an extraordinary number of miles on foot, hitching an occasional ride, and often simultaneously supported themselves by working at their trade as opportunity presented itself along the way. Many of their contacts occurred while walking from place to place. William Jefferies wrote that it had been when he was 17,“during the first few days of Jan. 1849, that I first heard ‘Mormonism’ as it is commonly called, from an Elder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints… I was going from Coleford where my father resided, to Stoke Lane, to visit an uncle by the name of Taylor, when I met with Elder Edward Hanham… He was peddling tea and preaching the gospel, and he talked to me about the Church and its doctrines.” Conversations were not always so religiously themed however. William Willes, an American, recorded in his diary for 1st March 1864, “Left Bath, in the morning, on foot: I fell in with a lame man on the road, who was very talkative: and among other matters he stated that he once hiked with a man, who was a great drinker & who had an attack of the “Ringle Tringdums,” (Delirium Tremens). In a short time we were overtaken by a butcher, with a horse & cart, who gave us a lift nearly 8 miles from Bristol. I paid the turnpike fee for my ride.”[12]

Most of the Americans, who oversaw and participated in the work, evidently believed in the prophetic powers and divine calling of Joseph Smith, and by inference their own providential calling to direct matters as they saw fit among the British saints. Probably few were as cynical and opportunistic as Hawthornthwaite portrayed Wheelock to be, although it is clear from contemporary accounts that the American leaders generally expected and were afforded preferential treatment. They had been called for a season to perform a challenging work in a strange land. They knew the mysteries of the kingdom, which they had received in the Endowment House, and to which the British were not party. Their knowledge of how the church functioned at headquarters was therefore superior. The means whereby desired ends were accomplished were ultimately of secondary importance. It did not matter that British converts were systematically deprived of knowledge concerning certain key “higher principles” of the gospel, or were left woefully unaware of the hellish struggle which their Zionist ambitions would bring them; in mid-19th century Mormon eschatology, Zion was still a far better place to be than “Babylon”, and gathering in the harvest of souls, (including for some a plural wife or two who would accompany them back to America), was what most counted. Pious lies were justifiable therefore.

However, when one considers from a modern perspective the evident sleight of hand with which early Mormonism in Britain was dispensed by a few “in the know” men who occupied the upper echelons, surely all but the most dyed-in-the-wool Mormons today would acknowledge, (as a significant number of the converts themselves later did), that in the 19th century Mormonism was routinely mis-sold to the British public. It becomes difficult to dismiss entirely from mind the idea, (regardless of how one might view today’s LDS church and culture), that the whole exercise was actually a disrespectful racket which mainly targeted the disenfranchised and uneducated.

Of course, for the sake of current public relations, it is absolutely essential that those early missionary endeavours be represented as having been in every respect honourable and full of faith. Equally, in order to foster an illusion of continuity in purpose, it must now be made to appear that British converts who migrated to America in the 19th century, did so in order to build up and strengthen the church so that it might in the subsequent centuries mount its present global mission. The problem with that concept, which is very popular within Mormonism today, is that it is not what the converts actually believed they were doing when they did it. Mormonism has endured because it is skilful at reinventing itself and its historical narrative from generation to generation. The plain truth is that those early British converts were living in their present, a very different present than our own, and considered themselves to be fleeing spiritual Babylon no less, (Great Britain), to avoid the scourges which they had been led to believe were about to be unleashed; they were seeking physical and spiritual refuge in God’s place of safety, Zion. Fear underpinned by a certain sense of elitism, is what induced them to forsake for ever their homes, their employment, and their unbelieving relatives and friends. This is more than clear from voyage notes like those recorded for the emigrant ship ‘George Washington’, which sailed from Liverpool for Boston on 28th March 1857: “During the meeting several hymns suitable to the occasion were sung by the brethren and sisters in a spirited manner, one of which was — ‘Ye elders of Israel come join now with me,’ &c., with the chorus ‘O Babylon, O Babylon, we bid thee farewell, / We’re going to the mountains of Ephraim to dwell.’ All hearts seemed to be filled with joy, peace, and praise to their Heavenly Father for his goodness in giving them an understanding of the gospel, for making known to them that the hour of his judgments (upon Babylon) were at hand, and for making a way for their deliverance.”[13]

 

Mormon emigrants on deck between Liverpool and Boston 

Mormonism succeeded in accomplishing its purposes in 19th century Britain to the extent that it did, largely because those overseeing the operation were prepared to cultivate the credulity of rank-and-file members year after year. They did so in order to produce a steady flow of human cargo, which commodity was to be used in establishing an American theocratic community, and it was done in the questionable belief that it was necessary that God’s chosen people be located in one place. Some may even see subtle parallels in those aims with their experience of Mormonism today. To be cynical, the all-consumingly important gathering of Israel, first to Nauvoo, and then to Utah, was ultimately about seizing and maintaining political power and identity, in the name of God, although of course that is not how Mormonism was ever promoted on Britain’s streets.

When the resulting cost in terms of human misery is taken into account, and weighed in the balance against the oft-shared faith-promoting material which understandably emanates from proud descendants of those who managed to endure the gathering process, that increasingly redundant Zionist worldview will be concluded by many to have been a social misjudgement, and a costly irrelevance. Further, it will with good reason be argued that the true legacy of the British Mormon experience, powered as it was by pious deception and spiritual manipulation, is an embarrassingly incongruous one for an organisation which today still proudly proclaims itself to be the only true and living church, with Jesus Christ having directed its progress throughout.

And this will become a stubborn legacy which will probably never be entirely shaken off by Mormonism until the full spectrum of the historical record is confronted and embraced with courage and honesty, and until a sense of genuine compassion and remorse is felt for those who, through a combination of circumstances and unrealisable promises, were eventually cast in the roles of victims and losers.

(to be continued)

---

[1] Samuel Hawthornthwaite. Mr Hawthornthwaite’s Adventures among the Mormons as an Elder during eight years. (Hulme, Samuel Hawthornthwaite, 1857). pp112-115.

[2] Fanny Stenhouse. “Tell It All”: The Story of a Life’s Experience in Mormonism(Hartford: A. D. Worthington and Co., 1875). p 130.

[3] The Bristol Mercury (Bristol, England), Saturday, October 17, 1857; Issue 3526.

[4] “Fortunes of a Mormonite”, The Morning Post, (London, England), November 04, 1846; Issue 22751.

[5]  Wilford Woodruff, Millennial Star, v. 41, p. 241

[6] Martin Harris, The Telegraph (Painesville, OH), March 15, 1831, v. 2, no. 39

[7] “4:305”, Journal of Discourses of the General Authorities of the LDS Church, accessed May 10, 2011, http://www.journalofdiscourses.org/volume-04

[8] “The Church in Bristol 1840 – 1911”, Mormon History, accessed May 10, 2011,http://www.mormonhistory.org/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=41

[9] Fanny Stenhouse. “Tell It All”: The Story of a Life’s Experience in Mormonism(Hartford: A. D. Worthington and Co., 1875). pp 48-49.

[10] “Incidents From The Life Of Richard Rawle as told by Maybelle Millet Rawle, granddaughter-in-law of Richard Rawle, also of Morgan, Utah, Summarized by Dale S. King”, accessed July 14, 2010,http://www.fortunecity.com/millenium/grangehill/246/richardrawle.htm

[11] “The Journal of William Jefferies”, William Jefferies Website, accessed December 20, 2009, http://www.williamjefferies.org/home/journal.php

[12] Mary C. Cutler & Glenda I. C. Sharp. “The life of William Willes : from his own personal journal and writings” (Provo: Family Footprints, 1999).

[13]http://mormonmigration.lib.byu.edu/Search/showDetails/db:MM_MII/t:account/id:461(accessed August 04, 2013)

Towards a More Fully Representative History of the British Mormon Experience – Part 2

Author: Christopher Ralph

(Part 1)

PART TWO: The Spectre of Spiritual Wifery.

Much has been made by the LDS church of Charles Dickens’ visit to the emigrant ship, “Amazon”, in 1863, as part of his “Uncommercial Traveller” series of commissioned articles. Dickens expressed genuine surprise that the Mormon emigrants on board were such a well disciplined and happy people. He described them as, “in their degree, the pick and flower of England”. Yet, he also alluded to their apparent ignorance of what lay before them. Of some young women for example he wrote that he doubted they had any notion of plurality of wives in Utah, and he also recorded that while on board interviewing them, a distressed mother was searching for her daughter, claiming she had “run away with the Mormons”.

Charles Dickens commented favourably about the conduct and character of Mormon emigrants he observed on board ship in 1863.

Such events were not uncommon. William Jefferies, who converted in Bristol in 1856, recorded in his diary how he, his wife, her mother and his wife’s two brothers made their way from Bristol to Liverpool in April 1861, and there boarded an emigrant ship without the knowledge of his wife’s non-Mormon father. The father followed them and belatedly appeared on board with a police officer desperately searching for them, but could not find them hidden among the luggage.

Dickens had excellent reason to question the blind optimism of Mormon converts. There were enough tales in circulation of converts’ disillusionment upon arrival in Zion, as for example this one which is never likely to be quoted by the LDS church, but was recorded by an early branch leader in Manchester, Samuel Hawthornthwaite: “William Clough, his wife, and child, went from Ashton, in the year 1853, but he was drowned in returning. Mrs. Clough states that when they arrived in the Valley, they were entirely broken down, and nobody seemed to take any notice of them. The first sight she had of the place, sickened her. They rented a mud hut, where they lived all the winter. They never slept on a bed all the time they were there, but spread the wagon cover, which they had brought over the plains with them, on the damp earth, and there they lay, first rolling on one side, then on the other, then on their backs; and many a night did she sit up with her husband, in the dark, shivering and shaking with cold, talking about the comfortable home they had left in England.”

The story of Julia Restell, a Wiltshire convert, is particularly tragic, and well illustrates how the LDS gospel profoundly changed lives, and not always in positive ways. Her hopeful marriage in 1846 to another recent convert, George Drake, soon proved unhappy, for it seems George was not living up to his leaders’ expectations, and before long he was “cut off”, (i.e. he was excommunicated). Excommunication in those days, was usually followed by rebaptism within a few weeks or months, and was a regular method of disciplining members for relatively trivial matters such as refusing to receive counsel from their leaders. George’s excommunication would have carried with it a social stigma, (disciplinary decisions were not kept private), and probably gave rise to discord within the marriage. After eighteen months of continuing difficulty he and Julia were called to council by their Branch President, George Halliday, in an attempt to settle their differences:

“Hearing their tales I found that Brother Drake who had been rebaptised only one week before had beaten his wife and gave her a Black Eye because she did not give him money to spend and he would not tell her what he wanted to get with the money, and as he has been guilty of the same things before and would Curse and Swear, I moved that he be cut off.”

The marriage persevered uneasily for a while, and Drake was re-baptized yet again the following year, but the problems recurred, and he was once more excommunicated “for disgraceful conduct” in 1850. The policy in those days appears to have been “three strikes and you’re permanently out”, so there was by then no spiritual future for George Drake, or any likelihood of marital contentment as long as Julia wished to remain faithful to the church. This presented a significant problem because George and Julia were booked to sail nine days later from Liverpool on the “North Atlantic” emigrant ship. George abandoned Julia at that point, but evidently decided to keep to the emigration plan, making his way to Liverpool for that purpose. In view of his “three times cut off” status, probably no-one imagined he would make that choice, and so no attempt seems to have been made to prevent him from doing so. On board George presumably acted the part of a faithful member, joining others in the communal hymn singing and the usual Mormon routines, as the “North Atlantic” sailed away from Liverpool docks. Upon arrival at New Orleans on 1 November 1850, he made no attempt to cross the plains to Utah, but set out instead on a new life away from Julia and away from Mormonism.

Julia remained in Bristol and emigrated two years afterwards, but, unlike her husband, did reach Salt Lake City. She must have carried with her a letter of introduction which persuaded the church authorities there to grant her an immediate divorce, (a divorce which would not at the time have been possible, or perhaps even legal in Britain), and soon afterwards she became one of the five plural wives of Bishop Thomas W. Winter, and died giving birth to her only child in 1854. Her daughter grew up under the supervision of Winter’s other wives, and subsequently became a plural wife of Joseph Smith’s nephew, Samuel Harrison Bailey Smith.

Bishop Thomas W. Winter, and the home where he lived with his five wives and seventeen children

There was of course by this time a shortage of marriageable women in Utah because of the Mormon doctrine that faithful men aspiring to the highest degree of heavenly glory, should have more than one wife. The greater the number of wives, the greater the glory of that man in the world to come. Heber Chase Kimball, (the first missionary to Britain, but later Brigham Young’s second in command), once stated: “I think no more of taking another wife than I do of buying a cow”. On another occasion, when addressing a group of departing missionar-ies, he counselled: “The brother missionaries have been in the habit of picking out the prettiest women for them-selves before they get here, and bringing on the ugly ones for us; hereafter you have to bring them all here before taking any of them, and let us all have a fair shake.”

The doctrine of plurality of wives was not officially announced until 1852, by which time the church was becom-ing securely established in Utah, but “spiritual wifery”, (a euphemistic term signifying concubinage), had been secretly practised among a trusted inner circle of the LDS hierarchy since the late 1830s. Its existence gave rise to many rumours, and Joseph Smith even issued a spirited public denial in May 1844, in an attempt to quash them once and for all, complaining: “What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one.” It is very evident, however, from a series of affidavits later collected by the LDS church to prove that the practice had originated with Joseph Smith, that by the time of his public denial, Smith actually had as many as thirty-four wives, eleven of which were polyandrous unions, or women “shared” with other living husbands. It will be seen then how deeply enmeshed with Mormonism had this concept become at an early date.

The modern LDS church, while admitting polygamy was practised by some Mormons in the 19th century, does all it can to downplay and dissociate itself from the spectre of spiritual wifery. President Gordon B. Hinckley, even stated in a television interview in 1998, that he considered that polygamy was “not doctrinal”. It would be very surprising if he had been completely unaware of many statements to the contrary made by the most prominent early church leaders. The Mormon pioneers, especially the very many faithful women who unselfishly entered into that demanding form of marriage, believing they were obeying a divinely revealed eternal law of heaven, would have been deeply perplexed to hear a prophet fail to defend that highest of principles. The fact is however, that polygamy has long been a source of embarrassment to most church members, simply because its past practice is so difficult to justify, and there seem to have been no moral or social benefits. Fairly commonly these days, it is misrepresented within popular Mormon culture as having been introduced only in order to protect helpless widows, or because there were more women than men. Neither of those claims is true, but such attempts to rationalise the practice, possibly illustrate the deep unease which is still felt by many. Mormon polygamy has always been news.

It is unsurprising then that rumours of Mormon polygamy began to appear in British newspapers by the early 1840s, a full decade before it was officially adopted in 1852. A 17 year old convert, Martha Brotherton, a native of Manchester, England, in 1842 emigrated with some of her family to Nauvoo, Illinois, (then the headquarters of the LDS church), and later that year publicly declared in an affidavit, that soon after her arrival Brigham Young and Joseph Smith had met with her in a locked room, and tried to coerce her into becoming Brigham’s plural wife. This was her introduction to the concept of spiritual wifery, and when she resisted the idea, Smith generously suggested that if she did not like the thought of Brigham being her husband, then she might have him instead. Her public disclosure of these events naturally caused great intrigue and excitement.

An early anti-Mormon depiction of Martha Brotherton’s indignation upon hearing Brigham Young’s proposal

The church hierarchy of the day vehemently denied that any such practice was permissible within LDS circles, and Smith retaliated strongly, referring to Martha Brotherton as “a mean harlot”. News of this filtered back to England, where Martha’s former reputation had in no way justified Smith’s name-calling. Parley Pratt, the head of the British Mission responded to the situation by going on the offensive in the LDS newspaper, The Millennial Star, branding her a liar and, (possibly disclosing his deeper concerns), added:

“By these disreputable means she thought to overthrow the Saints here, or at least to bring a storm of persecution upon them, and prevent others from joining them; but in this thing she was completely deceived by Satan. Her proceedings have had no other effect upon the Saints than to fill them with mingled feelings of pity and contempt towards her… for the information of those who may be assailed by those foolish tales about the two wives, we would say that no such principle ever existed among the Latter-Day Saints, and never will”

Pratt’s emphatic words were not without irony however, for the following year, having returned to Nauvoo, he himself took Martha Brotherton’s older sister Elizabeth as a plural wife! It is not really surprising though that he was so duplicitous. On one occasion he was quoted as advising the priesthood brethren: “we must lie to support Brother Joseph; it is our duty to do so.” Character assassination was acceptable if it protected the reputation of the prophet. However, history has fully vindicated Martha Brotherton, for several other testimonies on record persuasively witness that her case was far from unique; in addition to the thirty or so who submitted to Joseph Smith’s advances, more than a dozen other women when similarly propositioned, refused him, and were subsequently vilified for doing so. When the various accounts are assembled into one cohesive narrative, it is sadly rather obvious what was actually taking place around Joseph Smith in the name of religion.

Fanny Stenhouse (nee Warn) a convert in Southampton, and later a critic of polygamy.

Fanny Warn joined the church in Southampton in 1849, and the following year married Thomas Stenhouse, a very committed Scottish convert. Describing the character of the British Mormons of that era, she wrote they were “an earnest religious people, in many respects like the Methodists, especially in their missionary zeal and fervor of spirit”, adding that “the name of Joseph Smith was seldom spoken, and still more seldom was heard the name of Brigham Young… at that time polygamy was unheard of as a doctrine of the Saints”. Polygamy as practised by the top brass of the church in America was a carefully guarded secret within the British church, known only to an inner circle of trusted high-ranking church officials. Any rumours reported back in letters by disillusioned emigrants were always countered by fierce denials, and anyone spreading such suspicions was immediately branded “anti-Mormon”, a disparaging label which, even to this day, is rather liberally applied to critics in order to nullify all credibility in the eyes of LDS members.

“How different,” lamented Fanny, “practical Mormonism in Utah was from the theoretical Mormonism… in Europe, before polygamy was known among the Saints”. She was, by then, writing from unhappy personal experience decades later, and went on to relate how she had known a young couple in comfortable circumstances in England, who had given up everything to emigrate, but upon arrival in Salt Lake City, “were soon utterly disgusted by what they witnessed, apostatized, and set out for England”. On their way back east across the plains they and their child were killed, supposedly by Indians, although some suspected that their deaths had resulted from orders given by the LDS leadership.

An outrageous claim? It would be nice to think so, but when one considers some of the extreme statements of those early leaders, to the effect that when certain institutional loyalties and commandments had been breached, the most considerate thing to do, was to shed the blood of guilty parties, so that they might atone for their own sins, then such an appalling scenario, unfortunately, is not quite as far-fetched as at first appears… even though it might seem completely alien to Mormons of the present day.

As alien in fact as polygamy.

(to be continued)

Towards a More Fully Representative History of the British Mormon Experience

With the upcoming Mormon Pageant in Preston, England, it’s a wonderful opportunity to consider a more complete account of the lives of those first British Latter-Day Saint converts.

I believe that the more information one has about an event or period in history then the better one can understand what really occurred.

Just like being a detective or forensic investigator, the more accounts we have to consider, the closer we come to the truth of the matter.

Chris Ralph has studied the lives of the first converts to Mormonism in Britain to reveal the bigger picture.

Authored by Christopher Ralph. Chris has a Masters Degree in History from the University of the West of England, (2011). His dissertation was on the subject of “Bristol’s Earliest Mormon Converts”.

PART ONE: Truth Will Prevail

On 19th July 1837 Heber Chase Kimball and six other elders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, (commonly known as “Mormons”), disembarked at Liverpool. This was the first time Mormon missionaries had been sent anywhere outside of North America. They made their way to Preston a few days later and there saw a political banner proclaiming ‘Truth Will Prevail’, for they had arrived in the midst of a General Election campaign following the recent accession of the 18 year old Queen Victoria. This, they felt, was an excellent omen that their efforts in spreading the LDS gospel in that place would meet with success, and the political motto was duly adopted as their own.

Heber Chase Kimball, who led the first Mormon mission to Britain in 1837

So began an attempted Mormon Conquest of The British Isles, one which enjoyed notable success in many small pockets here and there over the next fifteen years. By 1851 there were approximately 32,000 Mormons in this land, which represented two-thirds of the global Mormon population at that time. However, the British LDS church was viewed not as an established outpost, but merely as a seed-bed, a resource for providing a steady supply of converts to populate and strengthen the American church, whose headquarters by 1847 were relocated from Nauvoo, Illinois to the Salt Lake Valley in the Rocky Mountains. British Converts soon learnt that their new faith required them, as soon as they were able, to leave behind their native land and non-Mormon family members, and travel to that Land of Zion, where God was establishing a theocracy which would govern the Earth for a thousand years; they were taught that the time was near at hand when national governments would fail, anarchy would reign, and no safety would be found outside of Zion. The message Heber Kimball and his immediate successors delivered was that an angel had in their generation appeared to a latter-day prophet Joseph Smith, and the Lord’s chosen people were being gathered one last time into Zion. Soon, with fiery judgments, would come the winding up of all other false systems. Salvation was to be had only in Mormonism. It was the only means available to mankind which God now authorised. All other creeds were an abomination in his sight.

This sense of extreme urgency resonated with the unsettled times through which many of the British hearers of this message were living, for it was an age of upheaval, most noticeably in terms of population movement. The younger elements of the British rural labour force were steadily being enticed by higher wages to the new industrial centres which were located within larger towns and cities. Tens of thousands were annually relocating to urban areas, where, in addition to higher wages, they also encountered indifferent working conditions, cramped housing, poor sanitation, ill-health, and large fluctuating impersonal communities where crime proliferated, all far different from the small familiar rural hamlets and villages they had left behind. There had not been such wholesale social change for centuries, and for many it signalled that the old order, (England’s green and pleasant land), was being overtaken by the dark Satanic mills of a new uncaring age, and that the world was indeed stumbling towards its end. This belief was especially rife within non-conformist churches, and some, notably Primitive Methodism, were looking to re-establish the church organisation found in the New Testament. Mormonism gave spiritual voice to all these inner forebodings and aspirations, offering new hope, and a practical solution in the form of a Zionist escape route.

Modern LDS artistic representation of early missionaries among their British converts

However, it is not enough to observe Mormonism’s spread in Britain simply in terms of a general top-down overview. In order to appreciate its true impact, the history of British Mormonism must be seen through the eyes of those who actually experienced at first hand this seemingly familiar, yet in reality this wildly different, new gospel. A ‘history from below’ as lived by the rank and file participants, is only way to appreciate events.

The modern LDS church itself promotes a shallow, glossy view of those early times, and perhaps that is not entirely surprising, for it is charged with promoting what many now consider to be a questionable product to prospective tithe-paying devotees, at the same time as attempting to retain within its head-count a rapidly growing number of troubled and disaffected members. The 21st century LDS church is in many respects very unlike its 19th century fore-runner which speculatively sent missionaries to Britain in 1837, although in one important respect it is its equal: it still does not present a full account of itself. Today, however, the LDS church is sophisticated, wealthy, business-savvy, PR-conscious, and carefully selective in which face it presents to the general public. It needs to be because in this age of rapid information exchange, theoretically all have reasonable access to uncomfortable LDS historical information, (which it has always sought to hide from investigators and its rank and file members), and so if the mission of the church is to succeed, the value of objectivity must be downplayed, and emphasis constantly placed upon comforting faith-promoting narratives, even though those narratives are typically unsupported by hard evidence. The church these days therefore teaches a rather diluted and sanitized gospel, still often drawing, nevertheless, upon early pioneer stories of faith and courage in adversity, while ignoring the many untold stories of those whose lives were wrecked or impoverished through their contact with early Mormonism. This is done, of course, in order to project an illusion of continuity and institutional wellbeing.

Only one-quarter of all British converts in the 19th century, managed to fulfil the desired objective of emigrating to America. Of those, a good many did not manage to complete the onward journey to Salt Lake City, and of those who did, a significant proportion became disillusioned, but found themselves so financially and spiritually mired in a strange and intolerant society, that they could not easily escape. They discovered when it was already too late, that ‘Zion’ was not as had been advertised. When the modern LDS church speaks therefore about its wonderful pioneer heritage, it attempts to infer that its neatly packaged accounts smoothed out through repeated telling, are representative of the whole, when in fact they are representative of perhaps no more than 15%. As marketing is the main purpose of the exercise, the version of early Mormon history told by the church today cannot be other than distorted, if not actually by deliberate sanitization, then by the inadequate sample size upon which that history relies. It is not good enough to say that the other 85% do not matter because they lacked faith. We cannot dismiss them in that way and pretend the resulting account is correct simply because we want it to be. The 85% had stories to tell as well, and good reasons for not being among the 15%, and those stories and reasons are as valid and material as any other.

In order to address this significant imbalance therefore, and very much in the spirit of ‘Truth will Prevail’, some of the alternative experiences which have been recorded and researched will follow. These also are a large part of British Mormonism’s past, and deserve to be considered in any British Mormon history or pageant, alongside the 15% sample which the LDS church might choose to showcase.

Take for example the story of George Darling Watt, who was the first man to be baptised in England. The LDS church provides a very interesting account of how Watt won a foot race to the banks of the River Ribble in order to be accorded that unique privilege. The story is designed to convey the fervour of those early converts. However, the equally interesting fact that Watt was later authorised by Brigham Young to take as a plural wife Watt’s own younger half-sister, Jane Brown, (they shared a mother, Mary Ann Wood), and that they became parents of three children, is seldom if ever discussed, even though that also illustrates the degree of fervour with which some accepted the Mormon gospel.

George Darling Watt, the first man baptized in England

One should ask perhaps, why would the LDS church today avoid sharing such an interesting piece of information with its members and the general public? Could it be that it is embarrassed? The early Mormon leaders certainly were not. In what Apostle Wilford Woodruff described at the time (1854) as “the greatest sermon that ever was delivered to the Latter Day Saints since they have been a people,” Brigham Young announced: “I believe in Sisters marrying brothers, and brothers having their sisters for Wives.”

Of course Brigham also taught the Latter-day Saints that the Sun is inhabited, that a man’s glory in the next world depends upon how many wives and children he has in this, that those who enter into mixed race marriages should suffer the penalty of death for breaking God’s law, and that Adam, the first human, is the God we must worship. He taught much which is no longer believed, and yet for over thirty years, (1844-1877), his utterances were God’s word to the Latter-day Saints. Brigham Young was God’s mouthpiece, and latter-day saints were expected to conform their lives accordingly. One wonders how many lived and died actually placing all their trust and belief in such teachings. It is rather a disturbing thought. And even today Brigham Young is revered by Latter-day Saints as having been a prophet, seer and revelator, but most current members have little if any idea of the strange worldview which was forced upon their predecessors.

(to be continued)

What is Truth? Looking at the recent CES Devotional.

My plan for this post was to spend some time looking at the January Ensign (Official Mormon) magazine. However it seems that a recent CES (young adults) devotional by “President Dieter F. Uchtdorf,” (Second Councillor in the First Presidency of the Mormon Church, pictured above) has raised a bit of discussion, particularly in relation to the issue of people leaving the Mormon Church due to the historical issues they are coming across, often on the internet.

So I am going to instead give some of my views on this talk, with a little reference to the recent Ensign Magazine too.

One of our commenter’s CJ, recently commented this as a response to Chris Ralphs recent article asking for an answer to issues he raises from the first Presidency.

President Uchtdorf answered all of Chris’s concerns (and anyone else questioning church history and honesty) very clearly in the recent CES devotional speech. For the complete response you have to watch the entire video. http://www.lds.org/broadcasts/watch/ces-devotionals/2013/01?lang=eng&vid=2093631404001If you can’t accept this as the First Presidency’s response to anyone demanding “the truth” from the brethren, then no one can help you.

So I thought why not, and watched it. I would recommend anyone reading this to do the same if possible so what I say will then make more sense, and so I hopefully wont be accused of misquoting etc, however let me know if you feel I have done this.

So the first thing that President Uchtdorf said that interested me was this:

“Because of your righteous desires and commitment to follow the Savior, the future of this church looks bright”.

This kind of reminds me of the whole issue of the LDS view of the Apostasy, and why it happened compared to what I see as the Biblical teaching on the success of the Church. Basically meaning that in LDS terms the success of the Church is dependant on the faithfulness and goodness of its members. If they are on track, the church is on track, if they are not, they could have problems, look at this in the Bible.

Ephesians 3:21 Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.

This is a confident prayer, what basis does Paul have to know that this will be the case? We see something of this further on in Ephesians.

Ephesians 5:25-30

Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That He might present it to Himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

We see something here of Paul’s basis for praying with such confidence that He might get glory in the Church throughout ALL ages. This confidence is because its Christ that nurtures and loves the church and cleanses it with the washing of water by the word. Jesus is the one that makes the Church successful not the people in it. Its easy to find many faults with the Mormon Church, the Christian Church, any organization with people in it and if the success of the Church depended on the people within it I do not think we would ever see a Church like this described in Ephesians 5. However Jesus said this:

Matthew 16:18

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

So firstly I would say this talk starts on the foundation that this Church President Uchtdorf is speaking too, is a man centred man reliant Church, hence we see this talk go the way that it goes.

Moving on the rest of this talk is completely devoted to creating a separation between the faithful good people that stay with the church, and the contentious bad people that openly question it, and ultimately leave.

He says this at around 22:30 on the video:

“Never in the history of the world have we had easier access to more information, some of it true, some of it false, and much of it partially true. Consequently never in the history of the world has it been more important to learn how to correctly discern between truth and error.”

This is a fair point, one that could be made in any religious Church or movement, however at around 32 minutes in the video we see where this is really going.

“We have an adversary, the devil who has as roaring lion walketh about seeking who he may devour. Satan is the great deceiver, the accuser of the brethren, the Father of all lies.”

Then at around 33m

“For those who already embrace the truth, his primary strategy is to spread the seeds of doubt. For example he has caused many members of the church to stumble when they discover information about the church that seems to contradict what they had learned previously, if you experience such a moment remember that in this age of information there are many who create doubt about anything and everything, at any time and every place.”

This is the issue we heard from Marlin Jenson a year and a half or so ago in saying that Since the days of Joseph Smith the LDS Church has never had a time of Apostasy like it is now, largely down to google (Paraphrase) see that live interview and my thoughts on it here. Its clear that this is still an issue and that we see this as a tool of the devil in using this information about the Mormon Church, he then goes on to say that this happens for everything, see what he says after that.

“You will find even those who still claim they have evidence that the earth is flat, that the moon is a hologram, looks like it a little but, and that certain movie stars are really aliens from another planet.”

The issues of people saying that the Mormon Church is false, based on the information they are finding on-line is compared to people who say that the earth is flat, the moon is a hologram and that movie stars are aliens, all I can say is WOW this absolutely amazes me. What we are seeing here in this talk is nothing short of damage control. This is President Uchtdorf demonizing the information and the people that present it that lead to people leaving the Mormon Church, thats all this talk is, we saw above CJ saying that this talk will answer all of Chris Ralph’s concerns, nothing could be further from the truth.

It goes on.

At around the 43rd Minute he says this:

“All who seek to know the truth, who study it out in their minds and ask with a sincere heart with real intent with faith in Christ will know the truth by the power of the Holy Ghost. And there is this additional unspeakable gift of the Holy Ghost, available to all who qualify by baptism and living worthy of His constant companionship.”

So we see its the genuine people with real intent that seek to know Mormonism, or the truth as how he puts it here. So what about those that are questioning? He goes on to say.

“Some however do not seek for truth, so much as they strive for contention, they do not sincerely seek to learn, rather they decide to dispute, to show off their supposed learning and thus cause contention. They ignore or reject the council of the Apostle Paul to Timothy, foolish and unlearned questions avoid knowing that they do generate contention. As disciples of Jesus Christ we know that such contention is completely inconsistent with the Spirit upon who we depend in our search for truth.”

So its those that are not sincerely seeking to learn are those that question the Church, and those that conclude that it is false that are the contentious ones. No longer is it just how you ask the questions but the questioning at all that is contentious. Those that are true disciples quietly accept what is being said. This is absolute scaremongering, seeking to make questioning the church and speaking out about issues you find a sign of unrighteousness and therefore people to be avoided.

I think this is the council from Paul to Timothy that is being spoken of here.

2 Timothy 3:1-5

This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God. Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

Is this really a warning against questioning the truthfulness of an organization?

Later at around 46 minutes in he says spare no efforts in your search for the truth, and goes on to say “The Lord has great confidence in you, He trusts you.” Again we finish where we started, in that the hope of the Church is found in the people listening, not in the great God that will see His church come in victory.

Interestingly in the latest Ensign Magazine there is an article called Faith and Intellect we see this from a girl who does her research about Mormon Church history.

In this spirit and with some mentored guidance, I pursued my desire to learn more about Church history. As I studied histories written by renowned scholars who were also believing Latter-day Saints,……..

No Anti-Mormon trash, she checked out only the best Faithful Mormon Sourced material she could find, she goes on later to say.

Realizations such as these have helped me to understand that although I will probably always have some unresolved questions, these intellectual issues are no longer central concerns for me. I have had too many experiences that have convinced me that the gospel of Jesus Christ is real and worthwhile. Even during times when I have wrestled with serious doubts, I have experienced firsthand the fruits of the Spirit as I have kept the commandments and served in the Church. These experiences have confirmed my faith. As Alma says, “Is not this real?” (Alma 32:35).

Just before the end she says:

I still think that it is healthy to ask questions and to pursue answers. However, not having all the answers no longer troubles me. This is because I have chosen to value above all other experiences the many times when I have seen the blessings of the Spirit at work in my life and in the lives of others.

This is what the Mormon Church wants, and needs if in reality it is to survive, its people who as the saying goes, pay, pray and obey. Not people who question and raise hard issues, history has shown repeatedly that these people are removed from the Church and are demonized as contentious tools of Satan.

So for me the talk given by President Uchtdorf I feel can be summed up by these points.

• You are all a great set of righteous people and because of this the Church will do well.
• There is lots of information out there but unless it comes from us, its not reliable.
• Showing the falsehoods of Mormonism is akin to believing the world is flat, that the moon is a hologram or even that movie stars are really aliens from another world.
• Satan is the one that causes people to openly question the church, these people are only seeking contention and are to be avoided.
• The truly sincere righteous people know that the Church is true.
• God trusts you that you will stay righteous, the Church depends on it.

Am I wrong? This is in no way, shape or form even marginally deals with the issues Chris Ralph and others are raising, it only serves to show that people like him are contentious horrible people being used by the devil.

My question is this, if the Church is so honest and true, why do we repeatedly see pictures like this put out by the LDS Church?

When every witness to this process says the plates weren’t there, Joseph put his head in his hat, looking at the seer stone he had unsuccessfully tried to find buried treasure with.

Chris Ralph said in one of his earlier posts that it was watching the adult cartoon South Park that introduced him to the truth of how this happened, why did he not find it out in his church that he had been a part of for years?

People will say your no different Bobby your faith has its problems in the past etc, however ask yourself this, are my church leaders kicking people out of my church for questioning its truthfulness? Are my church leaders giving talks like this warning them against people who openly question Christianity? Far from it.

This talk and Ensign article do nothing but tell the faithful to stay exactly where they are. As Ezra Taft Benson said in the 14 Fundamentals of following the Prophet

14. The prophet and the presidency—the living prophet and the First Presidency—follow them and be blessed—reject them and suffer.

Letter to the First Presidency & Quorum of Twelve, By Chris Ralph

A while ago Chris Ralph  wrote a letter that was published here and on Ex Mormon Bishop now atheist Steve Bloor’s Blog to the Europe Area Presidency. This has been met with no response.

Please see below a further letter from Chris addressing his concerns to the First Presidency and Quorum of the twelve.

This is something that to many members may seem futile, however to the many people that are leaving the LDS Church due to the issue’s Chris is raising it seems like high time that the leadership of the Church addressed these things themselves, rather than quietly standing back letting those that seek to defend the Church with no authority to speak for it do all the talking, which is the situation we are currently in.

Please enjoy and leave any thoughts below.

Dear First Presidency & Quorum of Twelve,

I am sorry I am writing this letter.

That is not an apology; it is a plain statement of fact. I sincerely am very sorry. It is regrettable that such a letter as this needs to be written at all.

However, when bishops and stake presidents find themselves unable to answer members’ basic concerns, and the Europe Area Presidency pointedly refuses to respond to crucial questions about the church’s foundational claims, it becomes obvious that something is very worryingly amiss. In such circumstances, what other option is there for troubled truth-seekers, than to refer the same unanswered questions to the fifteen men who are periodically sustained as prophets, seers and revelators, and who are sometimes reverentially termed “the living oracles”?

These matters are profoundly important, potentially influencing the daily lives of millions. Accordingly, answers are required from the governing body of the church. Whatever apologists, (self-appointed or otherwise), may have to say on the subject is irrelevant, unless of course, you, as that governing body, decide to endorse their ideas officially. In other words, a response needs to come directly from the horse’s mouth, and not from the mouth of just any aspiring stable-boy currently left to sweep up; stable-boys are hired and fired, and so their words carry no weight or authority.

You will, I assume, have some familiarity with my two Open Letters which were published earlier this year. If not, then they may be found here:

http://mormonisminvestigated.co.uk/2012/08/28/an-open-letter-to-europe-area-presidency-by-chris-ralph/

and here:
http://mormonisminvestigated.co.uk/2012/10/04/second-open-letter-to-area-presidency/

or alternatively here:

http://stevebloor.wordpress.com/2012/08/28/open-letter-to-europe-area-presidency-of-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints/

and here:

http://stevebloor.wordpress.com/2012/10/04/a-second-open-letter-to-the-europe-area-presidency/

For the sake of brevity, I will not at this point repeat the full content of those letters, but ask for your considered responses when you have read them. Please answer honestly and openly, and please do so without further undue delay.

We have clearly arrived at an important crossroads in the evolution of the church, and history will almost certainly not judge you kindly if the content of those letters continues to be ignored. They represent the questions of many thousands already conversant with the uncensored historical information which is increasingly available to inquiring minds.
In the UK it is becoming apparent that we are nearing tipping point. The proclamation just published by twelve British members is the clearest evidence that disengagement is well underway. They represent thousands in this land who might now be properly described as “closet doubters”.

And who is to blame for that doubt? Are the members themselves culpable, or the local leaders perhaps? Hardly so. Those now leaving in significant numbers had, in many cases, been stalwart defenders of the faith for many years; they are not luke-warm converts of a few weeks’ duration, who have turned away for lack of understanding of gospel principles or church government. The current local leaders in many cases find themselves placed in the unenviable position of trying to advise men and women who are more knowledgeable than they themselves are about the issues. It is not the bishops’ and stake presidents’ faults that they soon find themselves in retreat, incapable of answering and unable to help. Blame for this situation rests squarely with the institutional church itself.

In an age of rapid information exchange, the practice of serving up sanitized history and empty spiritual placebos to the overworked and under-valued members, is without doubt poisoning the whole body of the church. The physician can hardly blame the patient for this perilous mis-judgment.

The tide is rising rapidly, and millions more who have yet to awaken to the uncomfortable facts, (usually because they have been actively discouraged from looking for them by church leaders and teachers), will before long also find out. And then the fairytale must give way to an era of post-fairytale reality. That means pain, and fear, and a sense of the deepest emptiness for many who are undeserving of such traumas, but it is a process which cannot be halted, because surely the God of Truth has willed it this way.

I am reporting this to you, but presumably you are already more than cognisant of these enormous challenges, and so you will also understand that this situation leaves you with a plain choice: either to continue to lead the people in a state of perpetual denial and ignorance, or to teach them to live by a new-found faith and trust in objectivity, which will permit truth to lead us where it will. It ought not to be too difficult for men of real integrity, men of God, to make an enlightened choice. Have we not sung together many times: “Do what is right, let the consequence follow”? The time is upon us when trust in that admonition needs to be expressed both in word and deed.

It is essential above all else to acknowledge that a brazen denial of the past has never been true faith, but just an avoidance of reality; and stubbornness has never been genuine strength, but just arrogance in disguise. This nettle before you must be grasped; this bullet must be bitten. It is for you to act now if you do not wish to stand condemned, not by history alone, but by all honest men and women throughout the world who value truth.

Take for example the case of the Book of Abraham. Scholars have been in no doubt about its true provenance for well over 40 years. However, the church hierarchy has in effect concealed the known facts from the tithe-paying membership. Why? Why are such vital historical discoveries not taught to the members as a matter of honour and integrity? Why is the myth of the Abrahamic papyrus still perpetuated even though it is proven to be false? After all, we read in church-approved manuals: “When we speak untruths, we are guilty of lying. We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth. Whenever we lead people in any way to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest.” (p. 181 Priesthood & Relief Society manual, see http://lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-31-honesty?lang=eng).

Why then the deafening silence over something so radically important to the issue of belief in the prophetic office of Joseph Smith? Brethren, as the manual properly affirms, this kind of concealment is dishonesty; it cannot be called anything else. That fact alone is deeply distressing, but there is worse, for when such dishonesty is coupled with soliciting donations from a membership which lives in fear of spiritual condemnation if it fails to comply, it might perhaps be argued that institutional dishonesty has crossed a line and has become deception with intent to defraud. Or at any rate that is what we would probably call it in the UK. That reflects shamefully on all of us, and so I urge you to address this issue, or risk your names being forever tainted.

In the UK, most members pay their donations with added tax relief, and that resulting relief is additionally solicited by the church. This means that if deception with intent to defraud were ever to be proved, the long list of victims would not be limited just to the donors, but might also include the UK government, and therefore, in some way, each citizen of the UK. Assuming that UK offerings annually amount to a conservative £50m, it seems likely that the UK government is surrendering £10m per annum to the church as a corollary of the process. How much, therefore, has the average UK citizen unwittingly “donated” to the church over the last 40 years? This must be viewed as a potentially significant issue.

For most of us though, the deepest concern goes well beyond the earnings we have handed over under questionable circumstances. It is the devaluing of our standing in the eyes of our families and friends, which is most injurious to us, and it seems to occur whenever we place honesty above ecclesiastical loyalties.

I have a son I love and cherish as much as anything God has given me. I know he loves me too, but following my sincere attempt to be open with him about real church history, he concluded I had “lost the spirit”, and that I was no longer the person I had once been, the one he had always looked up to for advice and moral support. That wounded me deeply.

Why would he take such a view? Am I less honest, less charitable, less moral today than I was when I taught him at an early age to “follow the brethren”, and encouraged him to prepare to serve a mission for the church? Not at all. I am sure I am as much the person I ought to be now, as I ever have been. I have not really changed, even though my understanding of reality has. His respect for me has waned because you, (and those who formerly occupied your seats at General Conference), have consistently failed us. It is not his fault that he is afraid to look at the historical evidences which have opened my eyes. Nor is it his fault that he lives in fear of losing his own precious little eternal family if he should discover that my concerns are actually well founded. You have taught him throughout his life to fear the consequences of discovering the truth, and now he and we suffer daily for it.

It grieves me to know that he undoubtedly lives in a state of constant sorrow over what he sees as the disaffection of his parents and his siblings from the only divinely approved vehicle of salvation there is in this world. His life is needlessly streaked with unhappiness because of the fear of uncorrelated spiritual discovery you have sown in him since he first attended Primary. The demonstrably false tenet that God will not permit you, the Brethren, to lead the church astray has insidiously interpolated itself between us and his full trust, and so we are all condemned to suffer, as he doggedly tries to live an existence of false hope, vainly longing for things to be as they once were, but not knowing, (and, through fear, not wanting to know), the scale of the problems you have kept from him.

Having striven always to be honest with my fellow men, and having constantly held up that kind of example to our children, I find that a hidden wedge, (sometimes referred to by others as the “invisible elephant in the room”), has now resulted, and I am sure it is because he cannot prevent himself from measuring my worth by my unwillingness to pay you lip-service allegiance. As I no longer feel able to be supportive of your chosen ethos, he perceives that the fault is in me, for he has been thoroughly persuaded that you would not lead him astray. This is ironic on multiple levels, isn’t it?

We are more fortunate than many however, who, finding themselves in similar circumstances, are no longer even able to bring themselves to speak civilly to one another, for so great is the animosity arising from this issue of leadership infallibility. Tragically, Voltaire has been proven correct many times over in his observation that “Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices”.

Many LDS families have suffered and continue to suffer such injustices because of this infallibility belief first promulgated by Wilford Woodruff. It is time therefore to de-commission that pernicious and destructive teaching, which is currently instrumental in destroying so many kin relationships and friendships throughout the world.

There is a great need instead to re-enthrone the liberating principle of honest inquiry that all may freely discover the facts for themselves. This has been advocated by various leaders in the past, such as James E. Talmage, who stated:

“The man who cannot listen to an argument which opposes his views either has a weak position or is a weak defender of it. No opinion that cannot stand discussion or criticism is worth holding… In general it is true that nothing which cannot stand up under discussion or criticism is worth defending”

and J. Reuben Clark, who said:

“If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed”

and Hugh B. Brown, who observed:

“Only error fears freedom of expression.”

This current “control neurosis” should cease. It is time to do as Jesus would do, and teach a gospel of inclusiveness once more, which emphasizes that nobody should ever be considered a lesser person for pursuing ultimate truth, even if their quest leads them in due course to the conclusion that such truth is not found within Mormonism.

As you consider the humble origins of this church, and of Joseph Smith junior its founder, on this his 207th birthday, please don’t allow yourselves to be deceived into thinking that the finery and sophistry purchased with accumulated wealth in recent times, will ever be sufficient to cover up the sins of the past. The eventual cost of misleading the people at this crossroads would prove far greater than any price you would pay for championing transparency and inclusiveness. And if your courage begins to fail you as you stand upon this momentous brink, then please exercise full faith, and do not attempt to count the cost as you cast off the worn and torn rags of misrepresentation which, to be truthful, have adorned Joseph Smith’s church throughout its history.

Provided your intentions are worthy ones, we, the many disillusioned members, are ready to help in every possible way if you will only begin to speak to us, and also listen to what we have to say, just as Elder Holland promised he would do on BBC television earlier this year.

However, your desire for realignment must be full and sincere. Half-truths will no longer do, for they are also half-falsehoods, and will be found out. The searing light of truth must be shone upon every concern. Full disclosure is the only hope there is that the patient may be healed of his otherwise terminal
condition.

The time has come; this moment of opportunity may never return.

In hope,
Chris Ralph

A Quick Letter From Chris Ralph’s Dad to the LDS Europe Area Presidency.

Dear Brethren,

I am in my 90^th year; forgive me therefore if my senses are dulled, but I have always understood that courtesy is the watchword of our Church. Why therefore do we still await responses to my son Christopher’s open letters addressed to you on 28^th August and 4^th October?

My tired old mind can only surmise that your silence is either [a] sorrowful, [b] scornful, or [c] dependent upon the approaching fortune, or otherwise, of Brother Romney, with the election’s outcome determining the tone of your eventual reply. It has even crossed my mind that possibly you may not wish to risk jeopardizing electoral prospects by responding publicly prior to 6^th November.

Should this all be fancy on my part, remember that I am in my dotage, and so, perhaps, may be allowed to muse that if the said Brother does not triumph, then a reply, if and when it comes, will nevertheless be couched in measured and considerate terms…

Lest we should meet a coterie

Of Danites at our door;

With nasal twangs, and muffled bangs…

And we shall be no more!

 

Yours, in continued patience,

 

Ted Ralph

Second Open Letter to Area Presidency by Chris Ralph

Hi all here is another Open Letter from Chris Ralph to the LDS Area Presidency regarding a letter they sent to all churches in Europe, you can see the initial letter and his response to it here. (http://mormonisminvestigated.co.uk/2012/08/28/an-open-letter-to-europe-area-presidency-by-chris-ralph/)

This has had a lot of attention recently and is well worth a look.

 

Dear Area Presidency,

A little over five weeks ago I addressed an online open letter to you, posing some important questions relating to the founding claims of the Church. These questions, I suggested, required clear public answers if the growing tide of disaffected members was to be stemmed. I also invited you to open up a dialogue with me and others to consider these important issues. My intentions in doing so were honourable, for I am weary, (as I am sure many others also are), of feeling isolated from my local LDS community because I value historical truth. I am confident this letter must by now have been brought to your attention, as it is estimated that it has been viewed more than 15,000 times. However, in case you had by some misfortune not seen it, I also took the precaution of posting you a hard copy, explaining that my reason for going public was that there seems to be no other way of making ordinary voices such as mine audible to you.

In the last five weeks I have received many comments, mostly very supportive of my initiative. Some have been as hopeful as I, that my proposal to discuss these matters openly and honestly, would herald a new dawn for the LDS Church in Europe. However, others expressed cynicism over whether I would be taken at all seriously. One person wrote, for example: “The (LDS) corporation is run by businessmen and lawyers in love with Mammon and will do all they can to have the richest church in Babylon! Because of this they love good PR more than the truth! They will ignore the big issues of historical truth…” I sincerely hope that such views will be shown to be incorrect, but to date, as I have yet to receive any kind of response or acknowledgment from you, I admit to feeling growing concern.

Another observer warned me that I would probably be “jumped on” for asking searching questions publicly. However, my belief was that you would welcome an opportunity to set the record straight on the troublesome items which are currently causing disaffections. A recent statement on the official LDS newsroom blog, given in response to the David Twede issue, was reassuring, (see: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/mormonism-news-getting-it-right-september-25), as it made it clear that having, (and presumably therefore asking), questions is by no means considered anathema. The official statement announced: “It is patently false for someone to suggest they face Church discipline for having questions or for expressing a political view.”

That is exactly as it should be of course, and I trust the rest of the world will duly take note that asking questions is definitely allowed within the LDS Church community. This is indeed positive, as it infers that when questions are asked, answers will follow, thereby making the process of questioning a genuinely meaningful one. I do trust you will answer me therefore, as it would surely be preferable that a constructive open dialogue be seen to take place, than for my request to become as a voice in the wilderness, heard by many but answered by none.

In the spirit of the above-mentioned official statement, I will therefore adopt what I understand to be an acceptable formula of asking a series of questions by way of reviewing the key matters which arose in my first letter. I petition you with respect, apologizing in advance if some of the questions unavoidably appear to be accusatory, and trsut that it will be possible to move the situation forward positively by this means:

• Is it true that those who actually witnessed Joseph Smith at work in the production of the Book of Mormon, stated that he recited the text while placing his face into a hat, in which was located a peep- or seer-stone, and that the gold plates were typically absent during that process?

• Are the missionaries trained today to teach prospective members an accurate account of this important historical event, or do they, and present-day LDS church publications, still indicate that translation was effected in another way directly from the gold plates?

• If there is a major disparity of this kind between historical reality and what is being taught to the youth and non-members, why does the Church continue to support and encourage it?

• Can it be credibly denied that Joseph Smith took other men’s wives as his own in polyandrous marriage unions, apparently without Emma’s knowledge?

• Is it true, commencing with Fanny Alger in c1833, that Joseph had approximately thirty plural wives, the youngest, Helen Mar Kimball, being just 14 when they married?

• Are we to accept as accurate the multiple sources used by respected historians, which indicate that some at least of those plural marriages were secured on the basis of Joseph representing that his life would be taken by an angel if the prospective wife refused him?

• Have we any reason to disbelieve that Helen Mar Kimball was promised by Joseph that her whole family would receive exaltation in return for her accepting his marriage proposal?

• Are stories of Joseph’s extra-monogamous activities, (some of the accounts resulting from a church-sponsored affidavit-gathering exercise later conducted by his nephew Joseph F. Smith), insufficient reason to consider that Joseph fell from grace?

• Alternatively, would we be on firm ground as far as the present LDS Church leadership is concerned, simply denying the veracity of any of those stories, (as some members of the Community of Christ attempt to do), or should we perhaps admit that such behaviour did occur, but was acceptable to God because Joseph was his chosen prophet?

• How are we to respond intelligently to the charge that the Book of Abraham is dead, embalmed and in its canopic jars?

• Are we to adopt and run with the dissembling arguments of LDS apologists?

• Or are we to make up our own answers, or perhaps try to avoid the subject altogether?

• Do we have to rely on obfuscating arguments which are diversionary, embarrassingly weak and often inappropriate?

• Why are the apologists permitted, and seemingly encouraged to stand in the front line on such important issues as the Book of Abraham?

• Do the Brethren not possess between them an authoritative voice capable of providing proper answers for those they routinely implore to support the LDS cause?

• Is it not long overdue that the leaders, if they be the living oracles of revealed truth, provide the membership with clear, honest, inspired directions on addressing critical questions relating to LDS founding claims, and the provenance of the LDS canon?

• Does Elder Kearon, (who I understand is now a member of your presidency), remember me with even a small degree of the fondness with which I remember him, and does he perhaps recollect from times when we served together that I am a fervent supporter of the cause of truth, and will try to follow wherever it will lead us, because I believe that truth is freedom?

• Does he sense as I do that certain of our shared past experiences foreshadowed this more important all-encompassing one?

• Does he recall the very sad example of one brother, (he will know to whom I refer), who, driven by his fears, repeatedly refused to confront truth, until it proved disastrously late?

• Does he appreciate the parallel I am compelled to draw now between that brother’s misfortune and the current dilemma of the institutional LDS church?

• Do any of you believe that any of us can ever afford to be driven by our fears in the face of truth?

• Are there not moral concerns of the most serious kind to be carefully weighed and considered?

• Until all the questions have been answered openly and guilelessly, how may it be claimed that truth has prevailed?

• Until whole answers are given in response to every heartfelt question, how might an enquirer be able to judge the LDS message objectively and within an authentic context?

• Is honesty not more precious than loyalty in the pursuit of spiritual fulfillment?

• If honest answers would reflect the institutional LDS Church or the Brethren in a negative light, should lies ever be employed to conceal that reality?

• Supposing a woman bought a motor vehicle, which the salesman assured her had been delivered new and in pristine condition straight from the factory, and she subsequently discovered it had a history of several former owners, hidden high mileage, and painted over rust, would she not be in her rights to question the salesman who had seemingly misrepresented the facts to her for the purpose of obtaining her custom?

• After all, isn’t it deception to misrepresent, and isn’t that unacceptable?

• Wouldn’t she have cause to feel upset because the vehicle had been, in a very real sense mis-sold to her?

• Would she have even greater cause for upset if the salesman, instead of admitting his error, and seeking a way to obtain reconciliation, attempted to maintain the original deception, and further compounded his error by casting aspersions upon the woman’s character?

• Are there not obvious disturbing parallels with this scenario, and should those parallels not be noted, confessed and acted upon without delay?

• Is the LDS church not a parody of righteousness if it does not fully embrace the principle of truth?

• And if so, then would the negative consequences of failing to address these issues not extend far into the future to the shame of those who are presently able to make the necessary changes?

• What of those to come, who may be misled unless they are fairly warned in advance of the full nature of the brand they are being asked to commit to?

• Where, in all of these unresolved, unaddressed, unanswered issues, (and these are really only the small tip of a huge iceberg), may the half-truths generally to be found, of which you, as an Area Presidency, spoke in your April 2012 letter to local leaders?

• And who is ultimately responsible for promoting and sustaining those half-truths?

• Brethren, is it not time that we spoke further about all of these concerns?

• Do the declining numbers, and the fabricated statistics, not offer their own warning?

• Does making peace with historical truth have to be only “the final resort”?

• Can it not be done now rather than as part of a future post mortem which will be held upon European Mormonism?

• Is it not plain that there is a willingness today to address the painful realities which isolate the LDS church from the thinking world?

• Is it not also clear as each day passes in non-response that this present willingness will become an ever rarer and diminishing commodity?

• When will the nettle be grasped?

• When will the bullet be bitten?

• When will it finally be understood that entering into dialogue with those of us whose hearts are yet with the Mormon community, but whose understanding of history has outgrown a milk-only diet of myth and dogma, would lead to a more open, honest, robust and authentic organization, which courageously would embrace truth, without constantly needing to spin and deceive, while looking in fear over its shoulder?

Some in the church apparently flatter themselves into thinking they lead the many, not realising that God is still well capable of leading the one; and for some reason they don’t seem to understand that unless truth is embraced, fully, unrelentingly, “warts and all”, then in time those many ones will be led away.

In all candour Brethren, is that not already happening?

You clearly need the support of all those who understand and care. Please, therefore, let us reason together.

Christopher Ralph

An Open Letter to Europe Area Presidency by Chris Ralph.

The following letter was sent by the Europe Area Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to its Stake Presidents and Bishops, and various other leaders in April 2012. It was sent in response to the increase in levels of disaffection of members who were encountering the problematic history of the church through the medium of the internet. The letter was soon afterwards leaked to rank and file members and ex-members, and became a public document. It is here reproduced, together with my response in the form of an open letter to the Europe Area Presidency:

Dear Europe Area Presidency,

While your letter to local leaders of the church, dated 10th April 2012, was not originally intended for public dissemination, “the technology and modern communication tools of our day”, as you refer to them in that letter, have swiftly rendered this a widely read public document.

As such it is clearly deserving of a constructive response from the intended end-beneficiaries, and I, (being one of a rising tide of long established members who have in recent years been deeply affected by an array of distressing historical disclosures), now offer the following thoughts in the hope that the sense of wounded trust may be positively addressed.

Firstly, I applaud the encouragement you have given to local leaders to “work patiently and lovingly” with those of us who, more often than not through devotion to the church and its history, have had our eyes opened to challenging historical facts. How much better and in tune this is than certain regrettable past attitudes, which sometimes labelled those who had discovered uncomfortable historical facts as “unrighteous”, or as “having lost the spirit”, or worse still as “anti-Mormon”.

Whenever the term “anti-Mormon” is employed in an attempt to disqualify those whose avowed purpose is “pro-truth” and “pro-history”, then surely the church is upon very uncertain moral ground. Please, therefore, may I ask you to discourage that kind of name calling which can only cause further damage, and please do what you are able to reignite among the membership that same spirit of enquiry and quest for truth which a couple of generations ago was so aptly articulated by President J. Reuben Clark when he stated: ‘If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed.’

Perhaps also we could have clarification about whether we, as Latter-day Saints still believe, (as I was taught and believed when I was converted to the church over forty years ago), that truth is better than riches because it will set us free? Do we still place value upon the title Truth which the Saviour took to himself? Can it justifiably still be claimed that truth is the common currency of the LDS church in 2012? If so, then surely there must be a respectable place within the LDS church for those of us who love transparency enough to speak it, and share it, and stand for it, even though some of us have hitherto been despised and misunderstood for doing so.

Sadly, too many faithful advocates of historical truth have been shunned and discarded over the years, simply because they cared enough to question that which, although not of their own making or choosing, was nevertheless right there before them. What else could they do if they valued their integrity? It has long been a puzzle to me how we, as a church, might teach that the glory of God is intelligence, while, at the same time promoting the idea that when it comes to historical realities, ignorance is accounted a virtue. This, surely, is a contradiction which needs to be reconciled in the eyes of a quizzical world.

The concern extends beyond routine circumvention of intellectual discomfort however, to the weightier matter of commissioned institutional misrepresentation. The charge we, as Latter-day Saints of all levels of understanding, must confront is that the church has actively sought to replace authentic narratives of its history with deceitful mythologies.

For example, all of the contemporary accounts of the translation of the Book of Mormon refer to Joseph Smith using a seer- or peep-stone nestled inside his hat, into which he gazed for inspiration as he dictated the text, while the plates themselves were typically not present in the room. This process was of course an obvious extension of Joseph’s previous occultist practice of “scrying” during his treasure hunting days, (or “glass-looking” as the court papers referred to it when he was convicted of that misdemeanour in 1826). We have very detailed and reliable accounts of the actual translation process followed, and so a growing number of historically informed members feel concern that the church attempts in its publications to promote a different story without foundation in historical reality; these show Joseph apparently translating the gold plates by studying and touching them. Is this portrayal not disingenuous, given that we have a clear knowledge of how the text was actually produced, and also a tacit admission that the real history is perceived by church leaders to be an embarrassment?

Book of Mormon translation according to [1] The Ensign (Church Magazine), and

[2] South Park. NB: The South Park version is much more historically accurate

It is disconcerting when our children alert us to the true facts of this crucial event in Mormon history after watching an episode of South Park. The discovery that the creators of South Park place a higher value on historical authenticity than do the Brethren creates spiritual shock-waves from which some members never recover. And may I state the obvious here? This faith-shaking disparity between what the missionaries are trained to teach, and what the world already knows about our spiritual heritage, can hardly be blamed upon those members who accidentally stumble upon it, or on their children, or on the creators of South Park; the burden of responsibility for the misrepresentation rests firmly upon the shoulders of the Brethren, who allowed, and apparently encouraged it to be introduced into LDS popular culture. It is a sin of commission no less. Furthermore it is most distasteful to suggest, as some do, that because the sin was committed by the Brethren, it is authorised by Jesus Christ, unless of course they are suggesting that the Saviour is a deceiver.

Is it not sadly ironic therefore that your letter advises local leaders that “some choose to dwell on half-truths or inaccurate information regarding the church, its history, or its leaders”? That statement is undoubtedly true, but the accusing finger is readily shown by numerous examples, such as the one already mentioned, to be pointing in quite the wrong direction. Nor is it enough to assert, as you have, that the church does not hide historical facts, when it may so easily be demonstrated that it has done so in the past, and continues to do so even today. To make such a claim is just adding a further layer of untruth to that which already exists, and will not accomplish any honourable purpose. How is this practice worthy of God’s servants?

Might I humbly suggest that some soul searching and realignment with reality is urgently needed? It is certain that the regaining of spiritual equilibrium, which your letter laudably aims to accomplish, is going to take a great deal of constrained dialogue, empathy, understanding, and, where necessary, concession. Only when truth is acknowledged as sovereign will equilibrium ever be regained. Inclusiveness is a very positive first step in this vital process though, so thank you for offering some hope in that respect. May I comment, that my own Stake President has to date been commendable in his sensitive attempts to understand and handle my case? It is a pity that others in a similar position, I am informed, have done rather less well in dealing with these challenges.

We may of course ascribe much of the present situation to human failing. We might ask: is it wrong to fail if we acknowledge failure, and try again? Do we ever truly repent and learn when we cover our sin? It seems to me that we do not, and what applies to the individual, also applies to the institution.

Many wrestle in their spiritual progress with the behavioural problems of past leaders. They cannot understand why it was necessary, for example, for Joseph Smith and Brigham Young to marry and have relations with other men’s wives, particularly, (in the case of Joseph), when his own wife was not even aware of several such relationships. They also baulk at the idea of an angel threatening Joseph with a sword if he did not enter into clandestine polygamous unions with numerous women, and they cannot begin to see the relevance of his secret marriage unions with teenage girls, some as young as fourteen. That kind of behaviour just does not resonate with their concept of what a prophet is, or ever has been. If you insist, as your letter does, that Joseph Smith was not a fallen prophet, then those who have become disillusioned and deeply offended by such disturbing disclosures, will need a full and honest explanation from you, which goes a long way beyond counsel to read the scriptures and pray. Perhaps the Brethren might follow that counsel themselves and seek the necessary inspiration about how the membership may be taught the historical truths, contextualising Joseph’s own fallibility. Nothing less will begin to win back a good number of members who presently feel disaffected for this reason.

However, even the behavioural anomalies of past leaders, is not the most serious concern causing disaffection. For some years I for one have taken the view that it matters far more what God did than what Joseph is recorded as having done. That Joseph was fallible, fallen even, is ultimately acceptable to the believer, for he was a man; however the scriptures, or Standard Works, are at the very foundation of LDS doctrine and practice. We, as members, are duty bound to acknowledge them as the mind and will of God, and as the means available to us for measuring spiritual truth. I ask you in all sincerity therefore to explain publicly an anomaly which apparently undermines the very authority of the LDS scriptures in the minds of many. The reason I ask for a public explanation is so that all may learn where the half-truths as well as the untruths may be identified in this matter.

I refer principally to the deeply disturbing anomalies encountered in the Book of Abraham, for they above all else have caused my own uncritical acceptance of LDS authority to unravel. I wish it had not been so, but nevertheless that is how it was for me, and once again, please remember that the circumstances were not of my choosing. In fact, like many others, I only became aware of the problem because I was attempting to defend, not attack, the position of the church. I and thousands like me now need a credible explanation from the Brethren if any degree of our support is to be regained.

You are probably already familiar with the concerns I shall raise, and also perhaps with some of the unconvincing apologetic responses which have been offered. In brief however, those concerns may be summed up as follows:

• The Book of Abraham was, (according to official documentation), in 1835 translated by the prophetic powers of Joseph Smith, from Egyptian papyri which Joseph Smith said contained a record of Abraham, and also one of Joseph who was sold into Egypt.

• The resulting text of the Book of Abraham states that the record was made by Abraham’s own hand upon papyrus. This would presumably have been c 1900 BC. The papyrus actually dates to the first century BC.

• When it is translated by modern Egyptologists, no mention at all of Abraham is found in the text. The papyrus from which the Book of Abraham was produced, is in fact a late copy, (Ptolemaic), of The Book of Breathings, a regular funerary text, which maps pagan Egyptian beliefs concerning the state of the soul after death.

• The Book of Abraham produced by Joseph Smith from this papyrus refers in the text to associated “Facsimiles”, which also constitute part of LDS canon. Facsimile 1, (see below), for example allegedly shows Abraham fixed to an altar about to be sacrificed by the priest of the pagan god Elkenah, before being saved from this fate by an angel of the Lord. The official church website dramatically portrays this event in the “Gospel Art Picture Kit” with the following illustration:

• Note in both illustrations the inclusion of the lion-headed couch, and the presence of tell-tale canopic jars, which were routinely used by ancient Egyptians during the process of embalming. These formed part of the pagan funerary rites, and the same motifs may be found on the chamber walls of later pyramids, as for example:

• This well-known scene actually depicts the mythical embalming and resurrection of Osiris, the Egyptian god of the underworld, by his son Anubis, the jackal-headed god.
• There are differences certainly between Facsimile 1 and the images found in Egyptian burial chambers, but they are only the consequence of Joseph Smith incorrectly having guessed what had originally been recorded in the gaps where the papyrus was damaged. Fortunately, we are able to assess from the original papyrus the areas where Joseph employed his faulty guesswork, as the following photograph illustrates:

• The damaged and missing portion of the papyrus explains perfectly why the jackal-headed Anubis was absent from Facsimile 1, and in his place the otherwise unknown (to historians) priest of Elkenah was inserted by Joseph Smith. Creative though this idea may have been in 1835, according to the best scholarship presently available, it was wide of the mark.
• It is also very apparent that Joseph Smith had a misinformed idea about the original use of hieroglyphs. By comparing the glyphs on the papyri with an “Egyptian grammar” which was prepared under Joseph’s direction in 1835, it is apparent that Joseph considered that each glyph represented whole, complex sentences, rather than simple sounds or concepts. Accordingly we find one particular glyph, which resembles a reversed capital E, and which we now know means “water”, rendered by Joseph as: “It was made after the form of a bedstead, such as was had among the Chaldeans, and it stood before the gods of Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah, Korash, and also a god like unto that of Pharaoh, king of Egypt. That you may have an understanding of these gods, I have given you the fashion of them in the figures at the beginning, which manner of figures is called by the Chaldeans Rahleenos”

Even overlooking the anomaly, upon which historians are agreed, that the Chaldeans did not exist in the time of Abraham, or for several hundred years afterwards, how can such a mis-reading of one simple glyph leave any margin for doubt that Joseph Smith got it all very wrong in this case? Does it not take wilful blindness, and a high degree of spiritual contortionism to overcome plain common sense and believe otherwise? Are we really expected to believe that God, who gave each of us sufficient intelligence to reason and make sense of our environment, would require us in this instance not to use that same intelligence? In order to demonstrate faith, is it really necessary to practice such denial, or have faith and denial become one and the same?

For those of us who utilised native intelligence to renounce as hypocrisy those worldly systems and values around us when we turned our backs as converts on the world, and joined the LDS church, is it now reasonable to expect us to lay aside those same powers in considering this issue? Is it not more authentic, and pleasing to God, just to acknowledge the simple conclusion that Joseph may have tried but he failed? For me and for many others there is far greater peace in that course of action than in any amount of dissembling in a vain attempt to defend what is, and always will be indefensible. Can you or anyone, in the full glare of reason and reality, say I and others are wrong to feel as we do?

Brethren, where are the half-truths? Where are the falsehoods, and the false claims when the facts are properly and fairly illuminated?

It appears to me an impossibility in the light of the foregoing to disagree with the conclusion of one Egyptologist who remarked concerning the papyri: “Joseph Smith’s interpretation of them as part of a unique revelation through Abraham, therefore, very clearly demonstrates that he was totally unacquainted with the significance of these documents and absolutely ignorant of the simplest facts of Egyptian writing and civilization.” (James H. Breasted, Ph.D., Haskell Oriental Museum, University of Chicago)

I have not mentioned Joseph Smith’s interpretations of the other two Facsimiles, which are just as profoundly flawed; nor have I touched here upon any of the other scriptures revealed by him, but for now this one example will suffice. Please explain, with reference to the Book of Abraham, and the detailed evidence we now have concerning its provenance, how one may remain in harmony with Truth, and at the same time continue to believe that Joseph Smith was inspired.

You speak in your letter of providing the best possible answers. That is good, because those answers are what I and the rest of mankind deserve to hear, and we sincerely look forward to your response.

Please do not exclude me or others because we cannot agree with the position you feel forced to defend by virtue of your callings. Please accept us as those who wish for truth, wherever it may be found, to be upheld in the end as victorious over error. I agree with you that faith, (in truth at least), will always be a conscious choice, which is why I care enough to write and invite you to demonstrate the truthfulness of this matter to the world. Faith in that which is shown to be untrue however, is not worthy of the name. The apostle Orson Pratt, (writing with concern to the Book of Mormon, but his words may equally be applied to the case of the Book of Abraham), stated it well:

“If, after a rigid examination, it be found an imposition, it should be extensively published to the world as such; the evidences and arguments upon which the imposture was detected, should be clearly and logically stated, that those who have been sincerely yet unfortunately deceived, may perceive the nature of the deception, and be reclaimed, and that those who continue to publish the delusion, may be exposed and silenced, not by physical force, neither by persecutions, bare assertions, nor ridicule, but by strong and powerful arguments–by evidences adduced from scripture and reason. Such, and such only, should be the weapons employed to detect and overthrow false doctrines–to reclaim mankind from their errors, to expose religious enthusiasm, and put to silence base and wicked impostors.”

So, please provide your best answers, (even if those answers convey a sentiment of doubt), and please extend an honest hand of friendship to me and the many in my position, opening up a constructive dialogue with us, so that all may see that we are able to work together from here onwards in promoting truth and discarding past errors.

Sincerely and faithfully,

Christopher Ralph

A CONTINUING JOURNEY OF LOYAL DISSENT (Part 2):

This is part 2 of recent updates with Chris Ralph’s Journey out of Mormonism. Chris is a fascinating guy who has a very fair perspective on Mormonism despite the many historical issues he is facing which is ultimately leading him out of the Church. Part 1 can be found here.

Also just below. is the audio from a recent interview Chris did on BBC Radio Bristol, Trevor Fry’s “Sunday Starts”. Looking at the history of the Mormon church in Bristol, very interesting discussion.

Chris Ralph BBC Radio Bristol, Trevor Fry’s “Sunday Starts”

A CONTINUING JOURNEY OF LOYAL DISSENT (Part 2):

It is no secret that my testimony has been challenged enormously in recent years by information which is increasingly available on the internet and elsewhere. Some of the principle building blocks of that testimony have been found, upon close examination, to lack substance, and to be unfit for the intended purpose. That isn’t my fault, although I know some may choose to attack me for it, for I am merely the quality controller, not the manufacturer. Never again, for example, will I be able to view Joseph Smith as God’s ordained prophet now that I have seen for myself that his translation of the Book of Abraham from an Egyptian papyrus was ludicrously at variance with its authentic meaning. I do not see how one Egyptian glyph which we know translates as “water” can be mistakenly translated by God’s true messenger as: “It was made after the form of a bedstead, such as was had among the Chaldeans, and it stood before the gods of Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah, Korash, and also a god like unto that of Pharaoh, king of Egypt. That you may have an understanding of these gods, I have given you the fashion of them in the figures at the beginning, which manner of figures is called by the Chaldeans Rahleenos”?

It just isn’t tenable, no matter how much I might wish to believe it is. Now, whether Joseph Smith knew in 1835 when he supposedly translated the Book of Abraham that he was foisting upon the world an out and out deception, or whether he was completely swept up in the mesmerism of his own charisma, (which I personally suspect he was), hardly matters in the end; the fact is inescapable that his “translation” has misled millions in the name of divinity, and that cannot be dismissed as a trivial matter. (Yes, I have read the apologists’ explanations in my vain attempt to salvage something from the wreckage, but their spiritual contortionism is unconvincing and only saps confidence further). The conclusion that Joseph Smith was not the prophet I wanted him to be was not mere speculation on my part on a bad day, but was soundly supported by a higher quality of evidence than that required by criminal courts of law to condemn men to gaol. It is widely available evidence, obtained from multiple sources, which takes us far beyond all reasonable doubt. When I first confronted that evidence, and realized what it meant, my stomach turned. I felt physically sick. I so wanted Joseph Smith to be the prophet I had believed him to be for over 35 years. But pretense is not my forté.

The CJCLDS, (which, supposedly through divine revelation, canonized the Book of Abraham in the 1880s), has for over forty years possessed primary evidence of this deception in its vaults, but has done little or nothing about informing its tithe-paying membership of the historical realities of the matter. That non-response is for me the much greater concern, because, if institutional integrity means anything to God, that silence is surely indefensible. Why is this not by now headline news in every ward and branch of the CJCLDS throughout the world? Why is there not a frank and open discussion of these matters in General Conference? If there has been a major error of judgment, then the only right thing to do is to confess the error and seek forgiveness for it. Or are the Brethren not bound by the same laws which are incumbent upon rank and file members?

You see, had I, as an individual, knowingly misrepresented crucial facts about my credentials for the purpose of obtaining significant financial gain, (the CJCLDS apparently receives billions of dollars in tithing each year, much of it donated trustingly by the poor and needy), and had I done so over the course of forty years, it would rightly become a matter which would bar me for the time being from holding a temple recommend; it might even lead, with full justification, to action being taken against me because of my un-Christian conduct, and the possible loss of my membership. One might ask therefore why the institutional church, and those directing it, are not subject to the same spiritual and moral laws as ordinary members. Is the silence due to lack of courage, or lack of conscience?

The uneasy question also arises, if Joseph Smith couldn’t translate regular Egyptian in creating the Book of Abraham in 1835, how well qualified was he to translate so-called Reformed Egyptian six years earlier, when he produced the Book of Mormon, the keystone of the Mormon religion? It too, has been scrutinized of course, (not that the average member would know it), and with what results? So far academic research into native American linguistics, anthropology and archaeology, stylometric analysis of the text, and molecular DNA analysis, offers nothing of substance which supports the proposal that the Book of Mormon is an ancient record, despite the best efforts of Mormon apologists to suggest it does.

Put simply, the pieces just don’t fit. I have done enough research in my time, albeit into local and family history, to know that when enough pieces of the puzzle don’t fit, the hypothesis is flawed, even though our most heartfelt wishes and personal loyalties may be invested in it. In the real world, which is where, by divine decree we find ourselves, facts must inform feelings, and not vice versa. Anyone who doggedly insists that feelings may override facts, has already surrendered the argument, and also their ability to think critically. Sadly, there are many good but frightened LDS members caught in the jaws of this cruel dilemma, and I can only see those numbers escalating in the years to come. Historians may, I suspect, look back upon this decade as the era of the great Mormon meltdown in the British Isles. We can only hope and pray that growing disillusionment will not turn to utter despair. I am learning daily that God is far bigger than I previously ever understood, and there is everything still to hope for.

So, in summary, investigation reveals that some of the building blocks acquired during my long years of LDS membership, consist of a very fragile substance which crumbles under scrutiny. I wish it were not so, (I really do), but it is, and honesty must be valued above loyalty. That doesn’t take anything away, however, from the many good people I have been privileged to know within Mormonism, or from my own gains in having lived within that circle for so long, and it certainly doesn’t erase my sense of shared identity with Mormon friends. I so hope those friendships and associations will continue, for they are part of me. The apostle Paul was as committed a Christian as any, but he was also a Jew and a Roman citizen. His Jewish and Roman identities did not cause him to align himself personally with the judgments of Caiaphas or Pontius Pilate. Likewise I wish to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ for the rest of my earthly life, but my acquired identity is undeniably with the Mormon people, and I still count myself a fellow citizen with them for family and cultural reasons, even though the evidence in my view invalidates LDS theology. The theology won’t matter much with the passage of time. It is only certain that it will change as it has done in the past; it is going to have to in order to accommodate the 21st century blizzard of information which challenges many of its past assumptions.

It’s going to be a very rough ride in years to come, and many LDS will seek shelter from the storm as they stumble over the shocking truths for themselves. I think of my own children and grandchildren for example, and hope that they will find a safe haven. It’s a journey I am ready to make with them, but this journey can only be a journey of loyal dissent. Whether it is a journey I will be permitted to continue unimpeded has yet to be decided by those appointed to judge such things for the good of the membership. I will only say I feel encouraged though. If my Stake President is in any way representative of the main body of believers, then some ears will be ready to listen, and some sensitive, caring hearts and minds will be ready to consider the sincere newly found narratives and experiences of bruised and battered truth seekers like me. Perhaps Christian inclusiveness and unquestionable openness will yet come to characterize modern Mormonism.

The door, I sense, is presently open ajar, and, as long as those in higher places have the wisdom and humility not to slam it shut, there is, I think, yet real cause to hope that two-way fellowship and constructive dialogue will have important parts to play. Perhaps it will be finally accepted that people like me, who care deeply, are going to be of greater value commenting within the necessary processes of change, than would be the case if they were excluded or shunned. It should amount to this really: what would Jesus do? The name “Jesus Christ” may appear large in the title of the LDS church, but who will honestly dare to suggest that Jesus would approve of institutional cover-ups? Surely his message would always be that error should be confronted, acknowledged, rooted out, and repented of, and rebirth sought in line with truth.

Therein, I think, is found the Way, the Truth, and the Life which is genuinely worth following. The Lord has never needed anyone to lie for Him.

 

A CONTINUING JOURNEY OF LOYAL DISSENT (Part 1):

Below is a further update from Chris Ralph on his journey, 

I want to give full credit where it is due. Our Stake President is an intelligent and sensitive man, and someone deserving of my respect. Recently he visited me and my daughter at home. His demeanour was not that of a priesthood leader on church business, but that of a concerned friend who had known us for many years as “strong members”. I accept, of course, that he can never allow himself to switch off entirely from being stake president, but the meeting was comfortable, (for us at least), and it was evident that he genuinely just wished to understand what I/we now feel. That was commendable.

Since the resulting discussion was essentially between friends, I must respect the confidentiality of it in a way which I would not have been able to do had it been more “official”, as had been the case on the previous occasion. I will report only upon my own after-thoughts therefore, and not upon anything which actually passed directly between us.

It seems to me that sometimes there is a perception within the LDS bubble that those who, in LDS terminology, “fall away”, have suffered a “loss of testimony”. I believe my experience qualifies me to comment upon this idea. While such loss may appear to be self-evident to believing LDS, actually I would say that sometimes the reason those who investigate the history of Mormonism’s founding claims “fall away”, is not because of a loss of testimony at all, but because their testimony forcibly undergoes a broadening with each new astonishing discovery. I’ll rely on an analogy which I trust will illustrate this concept:

Supposing we still lived in a society where the general consensus was that the earth was flat. If by careful observation and measurement you found you could discern a slight curvature of the horizon, you might begin to suggest the unthinkable, that the earth was in fact spherical. Would you be likely though to be immediately believed by those who claimed they could feel the flatness of the earth’s surface through the soles of their feet? I very much doubt it; intellectual progress rarely happens so smoothly. If, however, those who continued to believe in a flat earth refused to consider your evidence objectively, and chose to keep believing in their limited but familiar and “safe” worldview, would it by any means render your understanding false, and theirs correct? Of course not, because perceptions have no influence over reality. Nor would it be accurate when they claimed that you had lost your understanding, simply because it did not accord with their own restricted one. Surely it would only be accurate to say that your understanding had changed, developed, evolved; the only element of loss would be of the misconceptions under which you had formerly laboured. In real terms your understanding would have increased, not dwindled, and with that new understanding you would begin to appreciate things you could never have appreciated while believing the earth was flat.

For example, you would now enjoy a more realistic perception of space, and by observing the apparently erratic courses of certain heavenly bodies against a fixed backdrop of other stars, you could even start to hypothesize that these “wandering stars” or planets orbited the sun, and that this earth upon which we live must also be such a planet. It would then seem irrelevant to you that those who yet lacked these insights insisted that they could not feel the earth’s motion beneath their feet. After all, their feelings, divorced from the objective enquiry you had undertaken, could have no bearing upon empirical reality, whereas your measured observations, being tried and tested, would daily reveal some new facet of demonstrable truth; your appreciation of our cosmic context, rather than the discredited dogma of a less enlightened age, would now inform your understanding.
And so it is also with my belief: has my testimony been lost through considering founding faith claims in a rational way? I would say not at all. I would say that on the contrary it has increased greatly. If a testimony may be likened to the construction of a house, then I have merely been able to be more selective, discarding some of the original building blocks which were available to me, because investigation had shown them now to be unsuited to the task. Where would be the wisdom in building a house from unfit materials? Isn’t it always prudent first to test those materials and use only those which are durable? To rid oneself of weakness, is surely the same thing as to acquire strength. If we uncritically accept the fitness of all building materials available to us, then what kind of a house are we likely to end up with? Could such a house withstand the worst winter storms?

And would a so-called testimony fashioned out of faith-promoting stories, which are readily deconstructed and discredited by the historical record, shelter us from the most testing storms of life? It has properly been said that truth cannot be damaged by investigation. If it is damaged then it is not truth at all.

Part 2 to follow soon.